To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=54505
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 16 10:46:07 -0800
2006 -------
hmm. must've confused something about cs_CZ.
wrt the other ones the situation is clear. Read this issue:
------- Additional comments from rene Fri Feb 10 05:11:40 -0800 2006 -------
quick look at the ooo202dicts02 stuff:
de_DE fixed. yes.
cs_CZ contains no license info whatsoever except LGPL in makefile.mk... What
are these patterns based on?
same with da_DK, en_GB, en_US and ru_RU.
it_IT only says LGPL without fullfilling the LPPL.
hu_HU looks ok (Didn't look at hunhyph itself, though)
nl_NL also says that it is based on the TeX patterns but not on which or
doesn't ship the original file and therfore also violates the LPPL.
Also read the LPPL, it says you have to clearly tell on what the file is based
on (in which case absed on the tex patterns is too lax) or ship the original
file, too...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
